He's an anti-pope, right? The more her talks, the more I'm convinced he's Peter the Roman

He's an anti-pope, right? The more her talks, the more I'm convinced he's Peter the Roman.

Other urls found in this thread:

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/pope-francis-its-terrible-children-taught-they-can-choose-gender/
youtu.be/fvjmveYw0tE
youtube.com/watch?v=I8c3X0giWJU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If Francis is a anti-pope, who is the Pope?

Some muslim I guess.

From WYD in Cracow.

>Pope Francis said this sin was often given financial backing by “very influential countries”: a form of “ideological colonisation”, the Pope said, which is “terrible.”

>The Pope said that one example – “I’ll say it clearly with its first and last name – is gender.”

>Francis told the Polish bishops: “Today, children are taught this at school: that everyone can choose their own sex. And why do they teach this? Because the books come from those people and institutions who give money,” he said.

>Pope Francis said that each government’s response would have to depend “on the situation of every country and culture.” But he said everyone must “have an open heart ready to receive … This is absolute!”

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/pope-francis-its-terrible-children-taught-they-can-choose-gender/

Remember the prophecy of a black pope bringing about the downfall of Christianity?
Well as it turns out that was an ancient Argentinean joke.

>anti-pope

I don't think you know what that word means.

He's a regular pope. He does what popes do when host nations ask him to rubber stamp racial replacement policies used to disempower and feudalize the citizenry. Once you learn enough history, you will find out that this is very typical.

>orthodox master race

fuck vatican cucks, thank god the schism saved Christianity

Old Rat singer

What's wrong? I like him

>Catholics
>worshipping statues
>thinking """saints""" can save them
>worshipping Jesus' mom

Don't you have problems with your last council to solve?

>Protestants
>ignorant of what the Church actually teaches

This is the Church

he's a south american commie

>worshipping statues
literally wut
>thinking """saints""" can save them
save them no good role model yes
>worshipping Jesus' mom
Respecting a women who wasn't a degenerate

pls

> allowing women and even lesbian bishops

this, also funny how that poster is a brit, whom also tend to have a cult of personality with the queen

Turn to Matthew 16:18

>save them no good role model yes

The only good role model is this guy mate

>racial replacement
>disempower and feudalize the citizenry.

What? Feudalism was good for Europe.

>He's an anti-pope, right?

No, he's a normal Christian.

>worshipping jews at all

Absolute degeneracy

>And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [...]

Sure that totally means he can exercise absolute authority over it :^)

>Worshiping trees

Might as well be an African bushnigger.

And now Matthew 16:19
And what you bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
Translating from my head. So yes. He can exercise absolute authority

>implygin

No, that is just a book. It's the most important book, for it answers the question of Why. But it is still only a book.

Granted. Now tell me where it say his absolute authority can be inherited

Acts of the apostles. When they elect an apostolic succesor for Judas

If it were only a book, like any other, then Christianity would just be a faith like any other

The successor to Judas is not inheriting Peter's absolute authority

He's very Christ-like, so no. Anti-Pope in the sense that he's not a Catholic power monger, I guess. He needs more money-changer-smack-down in him if I'm being honest, though.

>Worshipping a transvestite

The pope is atheistic. Christ-like is burning the unrighteous and saving the deserving

Matthew 25:31-46

Benedict would be the true Pope

>77
What does kek mean by this?

No the succesor of Peter is. It's just the first example of apostolic succesion.
Paulinic authority would be the second one I'm aware of

What did you mean by this?

There is no Biblical account of Peter's absolute control over the Church transferring to anyone

And there is no reason to believe that anyone other than Christ Himself can institute this kind of power into anyone

Ok, obviously not end-of-days Jesus, m8.

That Christ is going to personally judge humanity and send one part into eternal fire and the other into salvation

Good news is, we can never hope to have this kind of authority ourselves

Yes there is. In the first council of Jerusalem in acts Peter reminds them that he has been choosen by Christ to lead the flock.

>And there is no reason to believe that anyone other than Christ Himself can institute this kind of power into anyone
Yeah. But... Christ did it

God never changes

>Yeah. But... Christ did it

Himself? To anyone but Peter?

Where?

>This is the Church

Said millions protenstant denominations.

Did God not change into Jesus, doe?

You might find this channel interesting:

youtu.be/fvjmveYw0tE

To Peter. And the succesor of the office of Peter (I hope that works in english) inherits the keys

...

>And the successor of the office of Peter

What is the proof for this?

Apostolic succesion is a biblical concept.
What would be the point of giving the keys to Peter and then noone has them anymore. Before you say they weren't needed afterwards the Bible wasn't canonised until the 4th century so at least until then a working church structure would be needed.
Why include the story about the keys at all if they were only for Peter not his succesor?
Peter is the rock on which the apostolic church is built. The mission of that church is to gather the flock. This hasn't been achieved yet so the church of Peter must still exist. And we find it in the catholic church.
What would be the point of giving a mere human the power to bind and loose on earth for a lifetime span only and not until the return of Christ?

I really hope you don't believe the scribblings of dead sand people, and this is coming from someone who went to Sunday school every week since like 5 to 18. I didn't take a step back and look for myself till I got to college. It's worth your time to try the same, Eurabia bro.


>inb4 fedora

I'm not a atheist.

lol.
What's the name of that prophecy? I only know of "Peter the Roman" and the list of popes till the end times; and it isn't clear in that prophecy that Peter the Roman is evil, just that he's the last and his description is at odds with the rest of the list.

>Why include the story about the keys at all if they were only for Peter not his succesor?

Why include something not specifically instructed by Jesus?

An absolute religious authority could have only meant Peter

There is no indication that Jesus would have wanted it to be continuously inherited

>the Bible wasn't canonised until the 4th century so at least until then a working church structure would be needed.

There were early Ecumenical Councils to sort out major heresies but I'm not aware of any Peter-like absolute figure in them

>implying being educated means being right

I didn't mean to imply that. I implied being on my own and away from my parents, home town, and church.

>SOLA SCRIPTURA! THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY TRUTH
>except 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) because we don't like them

>being on my own and away from my parents, home town, and church.

How does that make you right?

Well I always thought the succesion of Judas would be enough an indicator that apostolic succesion is real.

>There were early Ecumenical Councils to sort out major heresies but I'm not aware of any Peter-like absolute figure in them
Actually apostolic succesion was one of the main components of the early church. You can't acknowledge the ecumenical councils without acknowledging the authority of the bishops that participated.

The letters in the new testament are full of commands to follow the churches authority figures. Sorry I can't make a better case again for me it seems clear from Judas succesion. I'm sure catholics have encountered that question regularly. Google might give you a better answer.

I'm more than willing to grant that there were some legitimate (and others not) apostolic successions

But nowhere do I see a justification for having Peter's absolute authority being inherited to anyone

jew god followers go live in the fucking desert where you belong!

Umm mate

it doesnt you autist

Well sorry I can't put it better. For me it seems obvious by necessity.

Let's try it another way
>I'm more than willing to grant that there were some legitimate (and others not) apostolic successions
How so? What defines legitimate apostolic succesions?
Do you think these succesors also inherited the authority?
Do you acknowledge Christ founded a church and that the holy spirit came down on them and prevented them from teaching heresy? They seemed to think they can bequeath their authority.

...

You arent getting it, Nigel. Saying the Bible is the Church is like saying the Magna Carta is England.

he nearly went full retard commie every single day, i know church wants to pander on the libtards to increase their Power, but guess what it is backfiring, no real Christian is believing him anymore, i will leave the church as well, no need for an insane pope

Anti pope is the title given to leading Cardinal who successfully disputes the title of pope from the appointed pope.

Francis is a shit pope, not an anti pope.

>How so? What defines legitimate apostolic succesions?
>Do you think these succesors also inherited the authority?
>Do you acknowledge Christ founded a church and that the holy spirit came down on them and prevented them from teaching heresy?

I myself see a legitimate passing of authority in the replacing of Judas

The inheritance of authority which continued after that I wouldn't call apostolic as the successors were not additional Apostles

Some may have well been wolves in sheep's clothing who would have been eliminated from a position of power once found with this fault

But see here's the problem when you have Peter's authority specifically being inherited. You can't question it

So if someone pretends to follow in Christ's steps and teaching and does not, but fools the others that he did (see Pope Francis for instance) there is no way to depose him during his reign

Such a power is dangerous to be placed in Man's hands and should only rest (as it indeed does) in God's

Thankfully Christianity declining fast here.

I was just being hyperbolic

I consider the Church as the totality of the community of faithful believers

What should you be thankful of it?

>The inheritance of authority which continued after that I wouldn't call apostolic as the successors were not additional Apostles
They actually are. Why else would it be necessary to find a succesor for Judas? The apostles have been instructed to gather the flock do you really think that task ended with the last of them dying?

>But see here's the problem when you have Peter's authority specifically being inherited. You can't question it
Cannot question what? His office? No. The same way I can't question things in the bible. Our religion is not a do-as-you-please. IF God installed a church with theological authority on church then he did that. Me not liking that fact wouldn't change it. So the question whether Papal supremacy is good or bad (I think good) doesn't even matter before the question whether papal supremacy is right or wrong.

>there is no way to depose him during his reign
There actually is. Once he teaches formal heresy. You not liking him personally is no heresy.

>mfw orthodox
>watching these heretics bicker over such things

damn, it feels good to be the One True Church

>
Obviously.
youtube.com/watch?v=I8c3X0giWJU

Read Matthew 16:18

I don't want to know these kind of things before I got to bed.
Thanks for ruining my night.

How do you know if Pope Francis goes against Scripture, if Scripture says the pope (Peter's successor) has absolute authority over its interpretation?

Pope benedict is the real pope.
Pope francis is just some crazy man voted in as pope while the
Real pope is still alive and breathing.

We have unchangeable dogma. The CHURCH has absolute authority over it's interpretation. The pope is the head it's not an absolutistic monarchy

What was the real reason he gave up his position?

I recently heard someone talking shit about Benedict and praising Francis as being progressive and "generally a lot nicer".
What is the point of becoming popeular if you have to give up the things you stand for?

He is fucking sinister, I friendly leftist article that claimed he taught swear words to his nephew as a young priest.

I'm a god damn degenerate and I know better than that, what kind of priest corrupts the young?

Maybe some external force pressured him to resign and to elect a marxist? Wouldn't be surprised, the media hated the RCC, now suddenly the media is nice and friendly toward the RCC.

If the (Roman Catholic) Church, rather than the Pope, has absolute authority over Scripture and Christianity, then Peter's absolute authority cannot be inherited by any one man

Sorry user. But the red pill is brutal.
And enjoy your stay on Sup Forums there's more where taht came from.

Why not? Where is the contradiction?

The Church (the collective body of believers) is not one man (the pope)

And? Peter was the head of the church and held the keys.
Why is it now impossible?
I don't get your point

Peter had absolute authority. Not the whole church

1 ≠ n+1 where n ≠ 0 and n >1

No you misunderstand. The pope has the same level of authority over the church as Peter had. It's literally the same office. Read acts. Peter was head but he listened to other people too.

See

Your faith in your church is leading you to hell.

You are following a false prophet.

Their claims to be the one true church are lies. They're evil murderous bastards.

Yes. As the pope. I'm sorry did I miss a post somewhere?
Papacy=Office of Peter
Same rules same power

sorry Sup Forums but Francis is not hitler - on the other hand he ain't commie either

he might not be as great as saint John Paul II or not as wise as Benedict XVI - but he is a good and faithful man and a decent pope

he sys that gay and gender are evil
while in Poland he said that ppl should value their heritage and that while we all should care for those who run from war and famine, we can't also forget that not all communities have capability to help offering more than a prayer - and that all the countries have to make decision for themselves in that matter

but thanks to the lefty propaganda pope's words were twisted and stripped of the original meaning

Ooooh say can you see?

So both the Pope himself and the Catholic Church (collective body of Catholics) have absolute authority over Scripture

Not over scripture. In interpretation of scripture. The pope is the head of the church I don't understand what your problem is. Please be more direct

How do you know if the pope is wrong?

If he teaches heresy. Violation of dogma